Never played Civilization game, which one is the best to start with ?
 Thalidomide Vintage Ad Shirt $22.14 |
 CRIME Shirt $21.68 |
Thalidomide Vintage Ad Shirt $22.14 |
Never played Civilization game, which one is the best to start with ?
Never played Civilization game, which one is the best to start with ?
Thalidomide Vintage Ad Shirt $22.14 |
CRIME Shirt $21.68 |
Thalidomide Vintage Ad Shirt $22.14 |
The best modern game is 4, but the easiest modern game to learn is 5.
IV is easier to learn than V but harder to master.
Leader abilities, beakers from tiles, spcial policies and religions add a lot of fluff to V.
Which has the best AI?
Without mods: 4, but it sucks in every entry.
With mods: 5 with Vox Populi.
Best to start would be 2. Knowing how to play 2 means you can play any given Civ or Civ-like game.
Those.
Civ 2 is great
Civ 2 with the UI launcher and patch is one of the best games of all time.
And as a learning tool for Civ series - both are fantastic.
OP asked for a learning tool. As much as fantastic game SMAC is, playing SMAC you learn... how to play SMAC. Majority of its mechanics are unique for that game, which means you won't find use of them in other Civs.
Careful with all that contrarianism
From the top of my head
>Half of the tech tree does nothing
>Hard-coded eras
>Broken AI
>Broken diplomatic AI (making it twice as bad)
>Half-baked mechanics for culture and resources
>Both expansions completely broke the game on few different levels
>Not even pretending there is a semblance of balance
Don't get me wrong, Civ 3 is still easily one of the best games in the series, but it's not the super-duper ultimate game you are up-selling it as. And definitely not the best learning tool, since it's essentially a big-ass experiment of mechanics.
Translation: my birthdate starts with a 2 and I'm afraid of everything older than myself
The game is fully playable without issues. It's what makes it so great - despite its age, it's perfectly playable and easily the best way to enter the series. You argument meanwhile perfectly describes Civ 1, which IS terribly outdated and just unpleasant to play in the long run, given Civ 2 exists
>OP asked for a learning tool. As much as fantastic game SMAC is, playing SMAC you learn... how to play SMAC. Majority of its mechanics are unique for that game, which means you won't find use of them in other Civs.
He asked for which one to start with. That anon established quite well that he should start with SMAC and then continue to play SMAC.
There was nothing in the question or response about trying out other civ games nor is there any reason to.
I stand corrected
Start with 2 and play every game in the series to 5 if you are about that stuff.
Otherwise just play 5 and then get bored of it after a session because nobody will play mom with you
play 4 and embrace it
then try out 5 and 6, see through their flaws, then proceed to shill 4 on /vst/ for eternity
Civ 6 then 4 then 2
Civ 5 and 3 are trash
1 Is fricking ancient and 2 is just 1+
>6
Dogshit. Nice try putting it among 2 and 4 so we won't notice.
Civ2 Gold with the UI additions launcher.
I liked 5 the most, 6 went to stupid cartoon characters and climate change was made even worse than 4. 4 bts had random events, which was really cool but if you like that just play EU4
anything after 4 is not worth playing
3 was the peak of the series
Civ 3 was decent in some respects (first Civ game I got opening day release after liking Civ2 so much, and made several mods of), but it had a lot of flaws.
Unit attributes and the general combat system in Civilization 3 is far and away the best; seperate Attack and Defense stats, seperate HP, the ability to flag actions to be indirect, and zone of control harassment, and the ability to make them cost population when created, gave units and the combat system a lot of dynamic options that aren't availible in any other civ game.
The problem was, the vanilla unit trees and tech trees were fricking atrocious, worst of the series; also the resource system was bad compared to Civ 4 (like building railroad absolutely requires coal even after developing petroleum technology), and the culture system was bad compared to Civ 4. Meta wise, Civ3 got shittier after the first or second patch when more of the Editor got hard-locked too. (Unit ranges got capped, a couple other flags got disabled as well).
Civ3 started a lot of great things that were only improved in Civ 4, the only thing Civ3 had total superiority of was the unit attribute design and the general combat system; but unfortunately the AI in Civ3 couldn't use that mechanic to it's full potential.
Civ4 took all the good domestic and economic features Civ3 had and improved them across the board; strategic resource access and manipulation is improved, culture and borders are improved; Civ4 is generally the best Civilization game.
One part 4 shit the bed on is combat, unfortunately. The unit attributes and "promotions" are all trash, and the potential specialization from it actually means nothing because the stack of doom mechanics you have no control of the order of battle of, so any specialized unit's perks don't matter because it will always face the absolute worst matchup for it. So there is no point in doing anything but throw a couple catapults like cruise missiles and cavalry pillage enemy land.
Civ IV is the best game all-around, period. The next two games have poor AI due to the one-unit-per-tile system as well as other issues. IV has better features and balance relative to the previous games, as well as a great soundtrack and narration by Leonard Nimoy if you like that kind of thing.
And excellent mods like Fall from Heaven and C2C.
SMAC, forget anything else.
3 = the only good one.
4 5 6 are trash, 1 2 are too old.
don't listen to the 4 shills 4 is the worst.
Why is 3 the only good one?
It's the only one you won't uninstall after wasting your time and regretting installing it.
It's the only playable one. It's the only fun one from start to end. It's the 1 and only true civ game.
amen brother
You mean Civ 4, the Magnum Opus of Civ.
He grew up playing 3.
hipster overdose
4 is better, ignore him
t. IVcel
Start with Civ 5, then play Civ 6. Finally play Civ 4. If you ever feel bored and just wanna play a super quick simplified game of Civ to pass the time, play Civ rev on consoles.
Never touch Beyond Earth. It’s horrible trash. Don’t bother with Civ 1-3 unless you really wanna see what Civ looked like back in the day. Play Alpha Centauri tho because it’s kino and there really isn’t many games like it.
>start with 5
Easiest way to get into the most infamous noob trap: not building enough cities.
This is literally why its the best start.
You are not under constant pressure to expand cities, AI will do it for you.
Once you master Civ mechanics you can move to 4.
5 has also the best tooltips and explanations.
And this is said as someone who started with 2.
>Playing 5
>Once you master Civ mechanics
Black person, 5 is nearly completely incompatible mechanically with 1-4. You would know, if you ever played any of those games
>And this is said as someone who started with 2.
Then you wouldn't be advocating for 5, but for 2 as a starter, since it is genuinely the best access port.
Civ 2 is good but terribly outdated by modern standards.
The only one I keep replaying is picrel.
Only civ.exe can stand the test of time.
Good luck winning on emperor.
Civ 4. Never was into the civilization franchise but having played a few games it just clicked.
Civ 2 and Civ 4 are the best Civs. SMAC is even better but a different beast and you should play Civ 2 before SMAC if possible.
Civ 2 is just better Civ 1, so you don’t need to bother with Civ 1 outside of curiosity.
Civ 3 is poorly put together and almost nonfunctional at times. It has always been the ugly middle child of the Civ games.
5 is... not as good as 4, but not really terrible. You can have some fun with it. It is different enough to be interesting at times.
Anyone trying to say civ 3 is better than 4 is just being ultra contrarian. Civ 3 is a busted broken ass game, civ 4 improved on everything except siege weapon warfare which for some reason you have to sacrifice for collateral damage.
Civ 3 is also the worst to get into for a beginner civ player. 4, 5, and 6 are 20 times better.
Start with 5, then play 6 and finish with 4.
Start with civ 2. It was the one I started with, and played with my dad. I love the wonder videos too.
I do love civ 3, mostly because it was the first one I really installed mods for. I have fond memories of the zombie island and lord of the rings ones. But yeah, it's not as good as 2 or 4.
why CIV:BE of course
5 is the easiest to learn and is fun for hundreds of hours. So 5. Then play 2 or 4. I don't really like 3.
Conversely, you could go the other way and play 6, which has a very different style of play compared to the others, but is still fun if you like empire building and board game strategy.